pubs.acs.

org/jchemeduc Article

Designing and Using an Atomic Model Kit with H, C, N, and O Model

Atoms Having a Mass Ratio of 1:12:14:16 to Teach the Concept of
Mole and Associated Stoichiometric Relationships
Vinay Bapu Ramesh,* Athavan Alias Anand Selvam, Surabhi Kulkarni, Anusha Dattatreya Manganahalli,
and Kiran R. Bettadapur
Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 986−991 Read Online
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *

sı Supporting Information
Downloaded via INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE on May 13, 2020 at 09:47:00 (UTC).

ABSTRACT: High school students find reaction stoichiometry and the

concept of the mole hard to comprehend. Teachers are well aware of the
importance of teaching the mole concept and also the difficulty
associated with it. In an attempt to improve the understanding of the
mole concept with reduced difficulty, an atomic model kit that provides
a hands-on learning experience has been developed and implemented in
a class of 40 students. Each model atom consists of spherical
neodymium magnets (acting as nucleons) of appropriate number (1
for hydrogen, 12 for carbon, 14 for nitrogen, and 16 for oxygen)
enclosed in a hollow spherical Styrofoam casing (acting as an atom) that
can be opened when required. These model atoms can be easily weighed
using a laboratory balance, to obtain mass ratios of 1:12:14:16. This
model kit provides an opportunity to have a hands-on learning
experience of abstract concepts such as mass conservation in a balanced
chemical reaction, excess and limiting reagents, and the mole and its relation to gram atomic/molecular mass. Herein, we provide a
detailed description of the design criteria and the construction of the model atoms. We also provide the activity sheets with the
necessary instructions to carry out the hands-on activities and the assessment sheets used for evaluation.
KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives,
Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Stoichiometry

■ INTRODUCTION
It is important to learn stoichiometric and quantitative aspects
of chemical reactions to understand chemistry. Nearly every
high school curriculum (for students of ages 14−16) has the
concept of the mole and associated stoichiometric relation-
ships; however, teaching and learning the mole concept has
been a difficult challenge. The reasons for this difficulty have
been attributed to teachers having a lack of comprehensive
understanding of concepts surrounding “mole”, the confusing
nature of the term “mole”, and phonetic similarity between
mole, molecule, molar, and so on.1−5 It is also known that
calculations involving the mole carry the risk of overloading
the working memory.6 Hence, it is not surprising that many
students lack coherent understanding of the mole and reaction
stoichiometry and carry misconceptions.4,5,7,8 To assess the
conceptual understanding of the mole, education researchers
have developed diagnostic tools that could provide valuable
insights into students’ thinking patterns and also the kind of
misconceptions that the students hold.9 Realizing the need to
address the challenges associated with teaching the mole,
various interventions have been proposed with varying
© 2020 American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
986
effectiveness, namely, developing an intuitive approach to
moles; usage of a concept map; problem-solving studyware;
computer-aided instruction; and teaching from the perspective
of semantics.10−14 Despite these efforts, the idea of “mole” still
remains hard to comprehend by high school students because,
in the context of chemistry, a mole is a very large number of
very small atoms and molecules. Moreover, the mole is a
concept that binds many relationships together, making the
whole idea confusing.
In recent years, a plethora of research has shown that the
conventional methods of teaching which involve passive
listening to lectures are ineffective in bringing about a
comprehensive understanding of the concepts among students
and hardly any meaningful learning takes place.15 To achieve a
Received: July 19, 2019
Revised: February 24, 2020
Published: March 3, 2020
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00665
J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 986−991
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

better understanding and help retain concepts in students’
long-term memory, the learning process has to be made
active.16 Education researchers advocate the use of hands-on
activities to facilitate the learning of the mole concept.17,18
Some introductory chemistry textbooks use analogies and
activities intending to help students understand the ideas of
“counting by weighing” and “relative mass”.19,20
Though efforts have been made to teach the mole concept
using concrete activities, they do not cater to all of the aspects
of reaction stoichiometry. Also, the usage of analogies alone
without hands-on activities is considered insufficient in
fostering conceptual understanding in many students.18
Therefore, teaching the mole concept and associated aspects
of reaction stoichiometry through hands-on activities was felt
necessary. Largely, atomic and molecular model kits have been
used in the past to aid the understanding of the structure and
bonding between atoms and molecules. Here we describe an
atomic model kit designed for the sole purpose of aiding
students to obtain a conceptual understanding of the mole
concept and related aspects of reaction stoichiometry. We
believe the atomic models will lead to a fun and engaging way
of learning.
carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen weighed 1, 12, 14, and 16
g, respectively. However, we have kept the mass
contribution due to isotopes outside the scope of this
atomic model kit.
3. Since all of the “mass” of an atom is due to the mass of
the nucleus, the relative mass ratio applies not just at the
atom level but also at the level of the nucleons.
Therefore, a design was chosen to construct the model
atoms such that mass ratios between different model
atoms would not alter whether atoms were weighed as a
whole or just the constituent nucleons.
Figure 1 illustrates an example reaction using the model
atoms. The model atoms were constructed as described below,
in a way that is consistent with these design criteria (Figure 2).

■ METHODOLOGY
Designing the Model Atoms
Figure 1. Balanced reaction between hydrogen and oxygen forming
water using the model atoms that is consistent with the mass ratios in
which they react (after rounding off to the nearest integer).

When matter is weighed, students are weighing the constituent

atoms and molecules. The mass of individual atoms and
molecules is miniscule and a perception of their “size” and
“weight” is beyond the reach of sense organs. If one can scale
up the sizes of atoms and make model atoms such that they
can be seen, held, weighed, and opened up to reveal the
constituent particles, it might help in relating to the ideas
governing the mole concept. From our previous classroom
experience while teaching the mole concept, we have observed
that students seldom realize that the atom’s mass is solely
contributed by the nucleus, which is in turn made up of almost
equally heavy protons and neutrons. Therefore, if the model
atoms are constructed in such a way that the mass of individual
atoms and molecules (made by combining atoms) can be
expressed as an integral multiple of the mass of a proton and
neutron (neglecting the small deviation due to mass defect in
the case of real atoms), understanding the logic behind relative
atomic and molecular mass becomes easier.
The design criteria for the atom models we created include Figure 2. (a,b) Preparation of model nucleons; (c−f) preparation of
these three considerations: casing for the nucleons; (h) preparation of the model atoms; (i)
atomic model kit.
1. A number of chemical reactions used as examples to
teach the mole concept at high school level use mostly
hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen atoms (either as Construction of the Model Atoms
atoms or as constituents of molecules). Thus, model To construct the nucleons for the model atoms, spherical
atoms of H, C, N, and O suffice to construct the neodymium alloy (NdFeB) magnets of 5 mm diameter were
necessary molecules. With 8 hydrogen atoms, and 4 each used (Figure 2a). These magnets serve two purposes. First,
of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, one can easily model at each magnet weighs less than 1g and so an appropriate
least 15 chemical reactions commonly taught at the high quantity of epoxy putty can be applied on each to get the mass
school level. to the required value. Second, the magnets hold together as a
2. Usually, atomic models cater to maintaining proportion- lump, resembling an actual nucleus in which the nucleons are
ality of atomic sizes and shapes. However, to teach a held together by a strong nuclear force. Students witness this
nonintuitive concept such as relative atomic mass, it is when they open up the model atoms to measure the mass of
essential to have atomic models that maintain constituent nucleons.
proportionality in mass. In our design, not only did we Epoxy putty was applied on each of the magnets, allowed to
maintain proportional masses, we also ensured that the harden and colored black for proton and orange for neutron
mass of the model atoms was equal to the accepted gram (Figure 2b), such that the resulting mass of any nucleon was
atomic masses; that is, each model atom of hydrogen, close to 0.97 g but not more than that. Representative images
987 https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00665
J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 986−991
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 3. (a) Mass of H, C, N, and O model atoms; (b) mass of the constituent nucleons of H, C, N, and O model atoms; (c) mass of H2O, NH3,
CH4, and CO2 model molecules.
Figure 4. Learning flow: sequence of concepts covered in part A and part B activities.
can be found in the Supporting Information, Figure S1a,b. This
is to ensure mass ratios between different model atoms do not
alter whether atoms are weighed or just the constituent
nucleons.
To construct the casings, solid Styrofoam balls of 20 mm
diameter for hydrogen and 35 mm diameter for carbon,
nitrogen, and oxygen were used (Figure 2c). The balls were cut
into two halves with the help of nichrome hot wire foam cutter
(Figure 2d,e). Next, the inner part of the foam hemispheres
was scooped out to make space for the nucleons (Figure 2f).
Finally, 2 mm × 1 mm neodymium alloy magnets were
embedded inside the scooped out balls in accordance with the
valency; namely, 1 for hydrogen, 4 for carbon, 3 for nitrogen,
and 2 for oxygen (Figure 2g).
Note that one can use hollow interlocking foam balls if
available, which significantly reduces the efforts involved in
988
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
making the casing for the model atoms. A representative image
has been provided in the Supporting Information (Figure S2).
To assemble the model atoms once the nucleons and the
casing are prepared, an appropriate number of nucleons are
placed inside the foam balls: that is, 1 proton for hydrogen, 6
protons and 6 neutrons for carbon, 7 protons and 7 neutrons
for nitrogen, and 8 protons and 8 neutrons for oxygen atoms
(Figure 2h). Then the hemispheres are glued together using
synthetic resin adhesive and the resulting model atoms are
colored, using the scheme, white for hydrogen, black for
carbon, blue for nitrogen, and red for oxygen (Figure 2i).
During one of the activities which require students to measure
the mass of constituent nucleons, the model atoms are cut
open with a knife. It is then glued back for further use.
The resulting mass of the model atoms were such that the
ratio of the mass of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00665
J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 986−991
Journal of Chemical Education
were 1:12:14:16 (Figure 3a). As mentioned in the design
criteria, the mass of constituent nucleons of H, C, N, and O
model atoms were also in the ratio of 1:12:14:16 (Figure 3b).
Consequently, the mass of molecules made from these model
atoms is consistent with the relative gram molecular mass of
the respective molecules. Also, the tiny magnets embedded in
the Styrofoam casing (in accordance with the valency of the
respective atoms) ensure that the model atoms are bound to
each other, resembling a molecular unit (Figure 3c).
Activity Sheets
A wide variety of hands-on activities were developed that
employ the model atoms to ease gaining an understanding of
the mole concept and reaction stoichiometry. The activities
were divided into two parts: part A deals with the concepts of
reaction stoichiometry; part B deals with the idea of the mole
and associated concepts. The activities were designed with the
intent of achieving specific learning outcomes. Figure 4 briefly
outlines the learning flow for the sequence of concepts covered
in part A and part B activities. A more detailed description of
the activities can be found in the Supporting Information.
However, the activities were not designed to assess the efficacy
of the atomic model kit as a learning aid. (For sample activities,
see the Supporting Information, activity sheets 1 and 2.
Complete activity sheets can be obtained by request to the
corresponding author.)
■ IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the mole concept activity was carried
out at a local school (following the National Council for
Educational Research and TrainingIndia Curriculum) with
students of ages 14−15 after obtaining prior consent from the
school authorities. The following concepts were covered in
their previous classes: laws of chemical combinations; atomic
mass and molecular mass; the concept of the mole; Avogadro’s
number and its interrelations. It is necessary to note that the
prescribed textbooks dealt with these ideas largely as a series of
facts without much emphasis on the underlying concepts.
The class (N = 40) was divided into four groups of 10
students each for the ease of handling the class. Each group
was provided with model kits, weighing balances, and all other
necessary items to perform the hands-on activities. A total of
10 sessions were conducted and the duration of each session
was 75 min. Prior to the activity, a couple of high school
chemistry teachers, who had about two years of teaching
experience were briefed about the activities and the use of the
atomic model kit. Though the research team was present
during the entirety of the activity, the facilitation was
conducted solely by the teachers. A pretest was administered
before the start of each part of the activity sheets and a post-
test was administered once the activity was completed. The
part A pretest and post-test had eight questions each, covering
aspects of physical and chemical changes, absolute and relative
mass, limiting and excess reagent, and law of combining
volumes. The part B pretest and post-test also had eight
questions each, covering aspects of gram atomic mass, gram
molecular mass, Avogadro’s number, and the mole. It was
ensured that the concept evaluated and the question number
was mapped between the pretest and the posttest. For example,
if question numbers 1 and 2 dealt with physical and chemical
change in the pretest, the same question numbers dealt with
physical and chemical changes in post-test too with the
specifics of the questions being different (refer to the
989
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
Supporting Information for the assessment sheets). This
helped us to compare the performance concept-wise, before
and after teaching.
■ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The implementation of hands-on teaching of the mole concept
in an average-size classroom (N = 40) posed no issues to the
facilitators. The students could follow the instructions
provided and conduct most of the activities independently.
The facilitators occasionally had to intervene, otherwise their
main focus was to ensure the students performed the activities
as expected.
In the implementation exercise, we found improvements in
the performance of the students between pretests and post-
tests (Figure 5); however, these were not statistically
Figure 5. Mean scores comparison between pretest and post-test for
Part A (N = 35) and Part B (N = 39). Graphs indicate mean (with
S.E.M.) of the percentage of questions answered correctly by each
student. A total of eight questions were there in both pretest and post-
test.
significant. Though the total number of students in the class
was 40, some students were absent for pretest, post-test, or
both. For the graph, we have only considered the data from
those students who attended the pretest, post-test, and all the
activity sessions.
While the overall data did not show major differences
between the scores of pretest and post-test, some significant
differences were observed in individual content topics. In the
Part A pretest, only 30% of the students were correctly able to
answer both the questions on the relationship between number
and mass of atoms; however, nearly 75% could correctly
answer in the post-test. While the improvement in the scores
for questions regarding limiting and excess reagent was
marginal, it was substantial for the question on law of
combining volumes, with 13 students answering it correctly in
the post-test and none in the pretest. Nevertheless, a larger
fraction of class was not able to answer the question on law of
combining volumes correctly, suggesting the activities do not
work adequately for all topics. In the Part B questions, while no
significant differences were observed as a function of content
topics between the pretest and the post-test, some students
could apply their learning of interconversion between gram
atomic/molecular mass, mole, and number of atoms/
molecules to solve some of the questions in the post-test.
Figure 6 panels a−c showcase three questions and a
representative student response that were asked in the pretest,
activity sheet, and post-test, respectively. The change in the
response of the students to these questions highlights the
learning process. We observed in the pretest (Figure 6a) that
50% of the students chose 25 molecules of iodine and a few
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00665
J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 986−991
Journal of Chemical Education
Figure 6. (a) Pretestoption chosen without any supporting
calculation; (b) implementation phasecalculation depicting the
student expressing mass of different atoms and molecules as an
integral multiple of mass of a hydrogen atom; (c) post-testthe
calculation similar to what was learned in the implementation stage
being used to a solve a problem in the post-test.
students chose 100 molecules of fluorine as the correct answer
(both the options being wrong in actuality). It is noteworthy
that the answers did not accompany any calculations indicating
that the students might have chosen the option either by
considering only number (100 in case of fluorine) or only mass
(iodine’s mass), and not both, which might be the reason for
not arriving at the correct answer (50 molecules of bromine in
this case). The activities of the implementation session
addressed this issue when the students learned to express
masses of different atoms as an integral multiple of the mass of
the hydrogen atom (Figure 6b). We witnessed some of the
students using this method of calculation to solve a similar
question and arrive at the right answer in the post-test (Figure
6c).
The students liked the entire activity and expressed their
wish that every scientific concept be taught in a hands-on way
because it changed their role from passive learners to active
participants. On the basis of the students’ comments, we
believe that the model atoms helped to increase student
engagement with abstract concepts such as reaction
stoichiometry and the mole. As expressed by many students,
in order to increase the effectiveness of the learning of mole
and reaction stoichiometry, along with learning aids, higher
emphasis on numerical problem solving might prove to be
beneficial. (As an example response, see the response from
student E below.)
A few representative comments are given below, which is a
reflection of students’ overall experience with the activity.
• “Yes, the module and model kits were excellent. They
helped me understand this concept a lot easier. I was
one of those students who thought mole concept was
difficult but this totally proved me wrong. The models of
atoms really helped me to understand. I really like the
990
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article
team’s hard work and the way they explained and made
us understand the concept was amazing.” [Student A]
• “I hope you guys go to many other schools to help
children of that school to understand mole concept. But
the effort by the teachers was excellent which made us
understand the topic very well in this session.” [Student
B]
• “Actually I liked when the atoms were broken open to
show how the protons and neutrons look alike. Actually
in module “Level-B” there had to be given space for the
working. As there is no working place, it became a bit
difficult for calculation.”[sic] [Student C]
• “The model kits actually helped. Since we could see
those model atoms, it was easier to visualize and
understand.” [Student D]
• “You should have given more problems based on the
mole concept.” [Student E]
■ LIMITATIONS
The size, shape, and color of the model atoms and nucleons
may convey ideas to students that are not entirely consistent
with the ideas concerning atomic masses and submicroscopic
properties. To prevent any possible misconceptions, during the
activities, the facilitators often emphasized the model atoms are
not really accurate representations of actual atoms but are only
accurate with respect to relative mass between them.
Nevertheless, students may have inferred ideas about atoms
and nucleons for which the model atoms are not built. For
example, in order to convey the idea that the protons and
neutrons weigh nearly the same, we have made the model
nucleons of almost equal mass but have colored them
differently to distinguish between them. However, it may
have conveyed the idea that the protons and neutrons are alike
to some students (see Student C response above). Further
implementation of the activity should strive to maximize the
benefits of visualization while minimizing the potential creation
of misconceptions associated with the visual imagery of the
submicroscopic particles.
Another limitation is that the model atoms do not account
for the mass difference between atoms of the same element
due to the presence of isotopes. We have kept the mass
contribution due to isotopes outside the scope of this atomic
model kit.
■ CONCLUSION
This hands-on approach to teaching the concept of mole and
associated stoichiometric relationships with the atomic model
kit proved to be a successful and an easily scalable model of
teaching. Using these low-cost, easy-to-prepare model atoms
helped student engagement with certain underlying concepts
associated with reaction stoichiometry and the mole. The
activity sheets not only serve the purpose of guiding the use of
the model atoms, they also provide necessary information on
the mole and stoichiometry. This feature can transform the
class into a self-regulated learning environment which not only
changes, but also reduces to some extent, the role of teachers.
The activities were implemented in a class of 40 students and
many encouraging positive responses were received.
■ FUTURE WORK
The current work has focused on the design, construction,
utility, and student perceptions of the atomic model kit and
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00665
J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 986−991
Journal of Chemical Education
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
activities described in this paper. However, it is noteworthy
that the scores on the post-test are not significantly higher than
the pretest. It is our conjecture that because mole and
stoichiometry are complex topics with many abstract concepts,
it might take more than one approach and repetition over time
for knowledge consolidation. Though the model atoms can act
as a learning aid, it might not be sufficient to bring about a
comprehensive understanding of all the concepts related to the
mole. Therefore, for future projects, we propose testing the
efficacy of the atomic model kit as a learning aid and exploring
the students’ conceptual understandings when they use this
atomic model kit.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
*
sı Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available at https://pubs.ac-
s.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00665.
Images of model nucleons; image of hollow Styrofoam
interlocking ball; description of the activities (complete
activity sheets can be obtained by writing to the
corresponding author); sample sheets of part A and
part B activity handouts (PDF)
Pretest and post-test assessment sheets (PDF, DOCX,
PDF, DOCX, PDF, DOCX, PDF, DOCX)
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Vinay Bapu Ramesh − Department of Chemistry, Prayoga
Education Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560085,
India; orcid.org/0000-0002-3401-6321; Email: vinay@
prayoga.org.in
Authors
Athavan Alias Anand Selvam − Department of Chemistry,
Prayoga Education Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka
560085, India
Surabhi Kulkarni − Department of Chemistry, Prayoga
Education Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560085,
India
Anusha Dattatreya Manganahalli − Department of Chemistry,
Prayoga Education Research Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka
560085, India
Kiran R. Bettadapur − Department of Cell Biology and
Physiology, University of North Carolina, School of Medicine,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516, United States
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00665
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the valuable contributions of Kreu, a
local maker space for providing guidance on designing and
construction of the model atoms. We also thank the reviewers
for their insightful comments which helped shape the
manuscript in the current form.
991
■
Article
REFERENCES
(1) Furió, C.; Azcona, R.; Guisasola, J.; Ratcliffe, M. Difficulties in
Teaching the Concepts of “Amount of Substance” and “Mole. Int. J.
Sci. Educ. 2000, 22 (12), 1285−1304.
(2) Tullberg, A.; Strömdahl, H.; Lybeck, L. Students’ Conceptions of
1 Mol and Educators’ Conceptions of How They Teach ’the Mole’.
Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1994, 16 (2), 145−156.
(3) Strömdahl, H.; Tullberg, A.; Lybeck, L. The Qualitatively
Different Conceptions of 1 Mol. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1994, 16 (1), 17−26.
(4) Gabel, D.; Sherwood, R. D. Analyzing Difficulties with Mole-
Concept Tasks by Using Familiar Analog Tasks. J. Res. Sci. Teach.
1984, 21 (8), 843−851.
(5) Novick, S.; Menis, J. A Study of Student Perceptions of the Mole
Concept. J. Chem. Educ. 1976, 53 (11), 720−722.
(6) Johnstone, A. H. You Can’t Get There from Here. J. Chem. Educ.
2010, 87 (1), 22−29.
(7) Lazonby, J. N.; Morris, J. E.; Waddington, D. J. The
Muddlesome Mole. Educ. Chem. 1982, 19 (4), 109−111.
(8) Cervellati, R.; Montuschi, A.; Perugini, D.; Grimellini-Tomasini,
N.; Balandi, B. P. Investigation of Secondary School Students’
Understanding of the Mole Concept in Italy. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59
(10), 852−856.
(9) Krishnan, S. R.; Howe, A. C. The Mole Concept: Developing an
Instrument To Assess Conceptual Understanding. J. Chem. Educ.
1994, 71 (8), 653−655.
(10) de Grys, H.; Wakeley, D. M. Developing an Intuitive Approach
to Moles. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (8), 1007−1009.
(11) Fang, S.-C.; Hart, C.; Clarke, D. Unpacking the Meaning of the
Mole Concept for Secondary School Teachers and Students. J. Chem.
Educ. 2014, 91 (3), 351−356.
(12) Dori, Y. J.; Hameiri, M. The“Mole Environment”Study Ware:
Applying Multidimensional Analysis to Quantitative Chemistry
Problems. Int.J. Sci. Educ. 1998, 20 (3), 317−333.
(13) Geban, Ö . The Effect of Microcomputer Use in a Chemistry
Course. J. Educ. 1995, 11, 25−28.
(14) Pekdağ, B.; Azizoğ lu, N. SemanticMistakes andDidactic
Difficulties in Teaching the “Amount of Substance” Concept: A
Useful Model. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14 (1), 117−129.
(15) Domin, D. A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. J. Chem.
Educ. 1999, 76 (4), 543−547.
(16) Gabel, D. Enhancing Students’ Conceptual Understanding of
Chemistry through Integrating the Macroscopic, Particle, and
Symbolic Representations of Matter. In Chemists’ Guide to Effective
Teaching; Pienta, N. J., Cooper, M. M., Greenbowe, T., Eds.; Pearson:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005; pp 77−89.
(17) Case, J. M.; Fraser, D. M. AnInvestigation into Chemical
Engineering Students’ Understanding of the Mole and the Use of
Concrete Activities To Promote Conceptual Change. Int. J. Sci. Educ.
1999, 21 (12), 1237−1249.
(18) Staver, J. R.; Lumpe, A. T. Two Investigations of Students’
Understanding of the Mole Concept and Its Use in Problem Solving.
J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1995, 32 (2), 177−193.
(19) Zumdahl, S. S.; DeCoste, D. J. Introductory Chemistry, 6th ed.;
Houghton Mifflin: Boston, 2007; pp 203−208.
(20) Stoker, S. S. Preparatory Chemistry, 3rd ed.; Macmillan: New
York, 1990; pp 138−141.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00665
J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 986−991